055 Large Destroyer Thread II

Z

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
Tam said:
I have never gotten a good theory or speculation as to why one decoy launcher has three rows and the other has four. Does it weigh that much to make the three row one into a four?
Click to expand...
To allow higher rotational speed with the same motor? The smaller one has to cover a larger angle than the bigger one.
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zichan said:
To allow higher rotational speed with the same motor? The smaller one has to cover a larger angle than the bigger one.
Click to expand...

Probably both a higher elevation and a lower depression angle? This would suggest the second launcher has a different set of decoys from the first.
 
by78

by78

General
The Chinese equivalent of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(ASIST) system equipped by the Type 055. Note the optical tracking camera in the lower left-hand corner of the landing pad.

52755255012_e2ccf53db1_h.jpg
 
ChongqingHotPot92

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
Flanker enjoyer said:
Does china have any naval air defense missiles comparable to sm-6,sm-2er,and sm-3?
Click to expand...
Size wise, the HQ-16 is similar in size to the early SM-2. However, the early SM-2s had a range of 74km, while the early HQ-16 only had a range of 40-45 km. Now most PLA units are getting HQ-16Cs, which have a range of 70 km, so similar to the early SM-2s. As with SM-2ERs and SM-6, Raytheon added rocket boosters to the original missile, allowing them to have ranges of 240km and 370km respectively. The newest version of HQ-16 has a declared range of 160km WITHOUT added rocket boosters, demonstrating China's advancement in solid propellants. The original HQ-16 came from the Russian Buk system, but the newest HQ-16 variants are clearly far more advanced than its Russian grandfather.

Now, I would imagine if you add a second stage rocket booster to the HQ-16C, you will have similar performance like SM-2ER or SM-6. However, this is not necessary because the PLA already have another long-range SAM called the HQ-9. The original HQ-9 (or HHQ-9 for the PLAN) had a range of 125km, but the new versions have ranges of 200-260km (some argued 290 km), depending on sources. At least the export variant of the HQ-9B has a range of 260km. The HQ-9 system comes from the S-300 series, but with China's continuing advances in solid propellant, I would imagine future HQ-9 variants to have ranges similar to those of S-400 (400km).

The HQ-16 family appears to be marginally better than HQ-9 in intercepting low-altitude incoming cruise missiles. So for HQ-16, range is not so important as to be able to intercept future subsonic and supersonic sea skilling missile (LRASM and Brahmos flying at altitudes of less than 30 meters). The HQ-9's job is mainly regional aerial defense, such as knocking out enemy aircraft (fighters, tankers, bombers, and AWACS) from more than 200km away. It may even have limited anti-ship capabilities (just like the SM-2 and SM-6).

SM-3 is a whole different story. It is anti-space weapon for hitting enemy ballistic missiles and satellites. China may have deployed a version of HQ-19/26 on ships, but we have no imagery confirmation so far. China's equivalent to SM-3s or THAADs (for hitting incoming targets in space) are classified to the point where everyone has to speculate, but we know China has such weapons because the PLA has tested them multiple times.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
ChongqingHotPot92 said:
Size wise, the HQ-16 is similar in size to the early SM-2. However, the early SM-2s had a range of 74km, while the early HQ-16 only had a range of 40-45 km. Now most PLA units are getting HQ-16Cs, which have a range of 70 km, so similar to the early SM-2s. As with SM-2ERs and SM-6, Raytheon added rocket boosters to the original missile, allowing them to have ranges of 240km and 370km respectively. The newest version of HQ-16 has a declared range of 160km WITHOUT added rocket boosters, demonstrating China's advancement in solid propellants. The original HQ-16 came from the Russian Buk system, but the newest HQ-16 variants are clearly far more advanced than its Russian grandfather.

Now, I would imagine if you add a second stage rocket booster to the HQ-16C, you will have similar performance like SM-2ER or SM-6. However, this is not necessary because the PLA already have another long-range SAM called the HQ-9. The original HQ-9 (or HHQ-9 for the PLAN) had a range of 125km, but the new versions have ranges of 200-260km (some argued 290 km), depending on sources. At least the export variant of the HQ-9B has a range of 260km. The HQ-9 system comes from the S-300 series, but with China's continuing advances in solid propellant, I would imagine future HQ-9 variants to have ranges similar to those of S-400 (400km).

The HQ-16 family appears to be marginally better than HQ-9 in intercepting low-altitude incoming cruise missiles. So for HQ-16, range is not so important as to be able to intercept future subsonic and supersonic sea skilling missile (LRASM and Brahmos flying at altitudes of less than 30 meters). The HQ-9's job is mainly regional aerial defense, such as knocking out enemy aircraft (fighters, tankers, bombers, and AWACS) from more than 200km away. It may even have limited anti-ship capabilities (just like the SM-2 and SM-6).

SM-3 is a whole different story. It is anti-space weapon for hitting enemy ballistic missiles and satellites. China may have deployed a version of HQ-19/26 on ships, but we have no imagery confirmation so far. China's equivalent to SM-3s or THAADs (for hitting incoming targets in space) are classified to the point where everyone has to speculate, but we know China has such weapons because the PLA has tested them multiple times.
Click to expand...

Thank you for giving a detailed answer instead of just snapping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top